Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)

Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation

Report (CAPER)

FY 2015

Alameda County HOME Consortium

September 2016

CAPER 1 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)

CR-05 - Goals and Outcomes Progress the jurisdiction has made in carrying out its strategic plan and its action plan. 91.520(a) This could be an overview that includes major initiatives and highlights that were proposed and executed throughout the program year.

CDBG funding represents a very small percentage of the resources dedicated by the City to achieve the accomplishments outlined in the FY 2015 CAPER. The City’s achievements over the past year include the following general highlights:

• Provided assistance to over 5,100 residents with a wide scope and variety of activities through the Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program.

• After rezoning 70 acres of land in Pleasanton for future high density residential development several years ago, the City subsequently approved eight (8) new rental developments with over 2,100 units that will include up to 350 new rental units at rents affordable to low and very low income households. In FY2015, two new market rate developments held application processes for a total of 73 affordable rental units targeted to very low income households (50%AMI). Six units were made fully accessible for persons in wheelchairs.

• Collaborated with Abode Services, ECHO Housing, and Eden Information and Referral in October 2015 to sponsor the third annual outreach event to educate and encourage local landlords to consider working with tenants who participate in various assistance programs (e.g., Section 8, Linkages, Project Independence, Housing Scholarship); a similar event will be planned in fall 2016.

• Processed the resale of below-market priced homes to first-time buyers through the Pleasanton Homeownership Assistance Program and continued to offer a Down Payment Assistance program.

• Contracted with ECHO Housing to maintain homeownership education services and one-on-one counseling and home buyer education services to current and prospective residents.

• Worked with local and regional agencies to explore the need to provide housing for individuals with special needs in collaboration with agencies such as Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL), East Bay Innovations, Housing Consortium of the East Bay, and Sunflower Hill.


• Served as lead agency in receiving and distributing $925 million in Section 108 Loan Guarantee funding for the Axis Community Health clinic remodel and expansion project at 5925 West Las Positas Boulevard (HUD approved the City’s loan application in February 2015). Coordinated with the cities of Dublin and Livermore on long term repayment.

• Worked with Open Heart Kitchen to allow for weekend use of the kitchen at the Ridgeview Commons affordable senior housing site to assist the agency in the goal of expanding hot meal service to the weekends in the Tri-Valley.

• Continued to develop new collaborations with the faith-based community through CityServe of the Tri-Valley to expand efforts to coordinate human services among the government, nonprofit, and faith-based sectors.

• With the guidance of the City’s Youth Commission, continued to implement projects related to the 2010 Youth Master Plan aimed at promoting the development and well-being of Pleasanton’s youth.

Comparison of the proposed versus actual outcomes for each outcome measure submitted with the consolidated plan and explain, if applicable, why progress was not made toward meeting goals and objectives. 91.520(g) Categories, priority levels, funding sources and amounts, outcomes/objectives, goal outcome indicators, units of measure, targets, actual outcomes/outputs, and percentage completed for each of the grantee’s program year goals.

Goal Category Source / Amount

Indicator Unit of Measure

Expected – Strategic Plan

Actual – Strategic Plan

Percent Complete

Expected – Program Year

Actual – Program Year

Percent Complete

Address Emerging Community Needs

Public Services CDBG: $

Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit

Persons Assisted

500 1715 343.00%

50 1715 3,430.00%


Affordable Rental Housing

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Rental units constructed

Household Housing Unit

50 38 76.00%

20 38 190.00%

First Time Homebuyer

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers

Households Assisted

20 0 0.00%

5 0 0.00%

Homelessness Prevention

Homeless CDBG: $

Public service activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit

Households Assisted

50 988 1,976.00%


Homeless CDBG: $


Persons Assisted

0 4 20 992 4,960.00%

Improve Opportunities for Seniors

Senior Services CDBG: $


Persons Assisted

500 808 161.60%

100 808 808.00%

Improve Opportunities for Youth

Youth Services CDBG: $


Persons Assisted

100 6 6.00%

50 6 12.00%


Improve Public Service Support

Non-Homeless Special Needs

CDBG: $


Persons Assisted

500 86 17.20%

20 86 430.00%

Improved Health Care Access

Non-Homeless Special Needs

CDBG: $


Persons Assisted

10000 1495 14.95%

2000 1495 74.75%

Preservation - Owner

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Rental units rehabilitated


50 0 0.00%

Preservation - Owner

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated


0 10 10 10 100.00%

Preservation - Rental

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Rental units rehabilitated


50 0 0.00%

10 0 0.00%

Promote Economic Development Opportunities

Non-Housing Community Development

CDBG: $

Businesses assisted Businesses Assisted

5 0 0.00%

1 0 0.00%

Reduction of Housing Discrimination

Fair housing CDBG: $

Public service activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit

Households Assisted

100 248 248.00%

20 248 1,240.00%


Service Enriched Housing

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit

Households Assisted

0 0 10 0 0.00%

Service Enriched Housing

Affordable Housing

CDBG: $

Rental units constructed


20 0 0.00%

Table 1 - Accomplishments – Program Year & Strategic Plan to Date

Assess how the jurisdiction’s use of funds, particularly CDBG, addresses the priorities and specific objectives identified in the plan, giving special attention to the highest priority activities identified.

The City is not able to address every one of the priorities and objectives in its 5-year Consolidated Plan every year due to limitations in funding combined with changes in local conditions and needs from year to year. Limited CDBG funding for public services is leveraged with other City General funds for Human Services and City Lower Income Housing funds for housing related services. In 2015, the City’s Housing and Human Services Grant-funded projects met several of the priorities included in its Con Plan:

1. Operational support for Sojourner House and Shiloh House homeless and domestic violence sheters ($35,000 in City General Funds):

• Priority 5: Maintain, improve and expand (as needed) the capacity of housing, shelter and services for homeless individuals and families including integrated healthcare, employment services and other supportive services.

1. Housing case management and tenant based rental assistance subsidies for Abode Services’ Tri-Valley Housing Scholarship Program ($25,733 Lower Income Housing Fund; $40,000 HOME)


• Priority 6: Maintain and expand activities designed to prevent those currently housed from becoming homeless.

• Priority 7: Build on inter-jurisdictional cooperation to achieve housing and homeless needs.

1. Neighborhood Solutions Housing Rehabilitation Program ($73,800 CDBG; $34,568 HOME):

• Priority 2: Preserve existing affordable rental and ownership housing households at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI).

• Priority 8: Increase the availability of service-enriched housing for persons with special needs.

1. Other CDBG-funded projects addressed key community needs related to the provision of public services:

• Axis Community Health / Funding for New Clinic Capital Project: ($100,000 CDBG)

• Spectrum Community Services / Meals on Wheels for Pleasanton Seniors: ($7,000 CDBG)

• Open Heart Kitchen / Congregate Meals for Seniors in Pleasanton: ($10,000 CDBG)

• Open Heart Kitchen / Hot Meal Program - Ridge View Commons: ($13,338 CDBG)

• Open Heart Kitchen / Hot Meal and Weekend Box Lunch Program – Trinity Lutheran Church: ($10,000)

Con Plan priorities that were not addressed using CDBG funds (due to the low amount of CDBG funding received by the City) were addressed using local funds ($174,162 in General Funds for Human Services; and, $64,500 in Lower Income Housing Funds). These accomplishments are detailed later in this report.


CR-10 - Racial and Ethnic composition of families assisted

Describe the families assisted (including the racial and ethnic status of families assisted). 91.520(a)

CDBG White 311 Black or African American 29 Asian 244 American Indian or American Native 1 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 22 Total 607 Hispanic 175 Not Hispanic 0

Table 2 – Table of assistance to racial and ethnic populations by source of funds

Narrative

The ethnic distribution of all households and persons assisted through all HHSG-funded activities are summarized in the attached Table P-2. The demographics in the table include all of the projects that were funded in FY 2015 through the City's Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program.

While none of the City's housing and community development programs during the program period were targeted to specific ethnic groups, the trends for assistance by ethnicity were generally reflective of the City's ethnic makeup. In addition, most of the households and persons assisted during FY 2015 were considered to meet National Affordable Housing Act Section 215 goals.


CR-15 - Resources and Investments 91.520(a) Identify the resources made available

Source of Funds Source Resources Made Available

Amount Expended During Program Year

CDBG 1,180,000 204,868 Table 3 – Resources Made Available

Narrative

A summary of the allocation and use of CDBG funds and related resources made available during the program period through the City's Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program is found in Table P-1. A small percentage of the City’s total CDBG allocation for FY 2015 had not yet been drawn down by the end of the fiscal year. However, it is anticipated that remaining funds will be fully spent withing FY2016. CDBG funds represent a relatively small component of City resources used to realize the achievements outlined in the FY 2015 CAPER.

A larger amount of local resources (and leveraged funds) have been made available and utilized to addresse Con Plan and Action Plan priorities over the past several years including:

• $500,000 in City funds in FY 2014 to the Anton Hacienda apartment development that includes 35 apartments for very low income households (50% of AMI) within a new 168 unit project completed in June 2015 at 5725 West Las Positas Blvd.

• $13.75 million in City Lower Income Housing and $400,000 in HOME funds for the Kottinger Gardens project that will replace 90 units of senior rental housing built in the late 1960’s with a new 185-unit development with rents at very low and extremely low income levels. Disposition of the Public Housing Authority property was approved by HUD in February 2016 and the City concurrently entered into a long term ground lease for redevelopment of the Kottinger Place public housing site in March 2016.

• Land valued at approximately $6.8 million for the future Kottinger Gardens development referenced above.

• Approximately $200,000 annually for the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program, including CDBG, HOME, as well as local funds.

• Approximately $50,000 per year in City funds for housing counseling and tenant-landlord services for Pleasanton residents through a contract with ECHO Housing.

• Approximately $64,500 per year in City Lower Income Housing funds for housing counseling and tenant-landlord services targeted to Pleasanton residents with disabilities through contracts with ECHO Housing and CRIL (Community Resources for Independent Living).


Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments

Target Area Planned Percentage of Allocation

Actual Percentage of Allocation

Narrative Description

Table 4 – Identify the geographic distribution and location of investments

Narrative

The majority of the City’s CDBG-funded activities in FY 2015 were not tied to one specific geographic area (i.e., the services were targeted to any residents regardless of residence location). Funds that were tied to a specific geographic location are summarized below:

• Axis Community Health’s new clinic is located at 5925 West Las Positas Blvd. in north Pleasanton. Axis currently provides services through its existing main clinic located at 4361 Railroad Avenue in downtown Pleasanton.

• Open Heart Kitchen provided its lunchtime senior congregate meal program through the Pleasanton Senior Center located at 5353 Sunol Blvd. in south Pleasanton, however meal services are open to all seniors in Pleasanton.

• Open Heart Kitchen provided its evening senior congregate meal program at Ridge View Commons senior apartments located at 5200 Case Ave. in south Pleasanton. The location serves residents of the affordable housing development and other seniors in the community.


Leveraging

Explain how federal funds leveraged additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements were satisfied, as well as how any publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that were used to address the needs identified in the plan.

Nearly half of the resources cited in the preceding narrative above consisted of non-federal funds. More specifically, the City’s Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program, which incorporates the City’s annual CDBG allocation, represented the following match of federal to local funds in FY 2015:

• Federal (CDBG): $268,922 (44.4%)

• Federal (HOME): $74,758 (12.3%)

• Local (General Funds / Lower Income Housing Funds): $262,395(43.3%)

• Total: $606,075(100%)


CR-20 - Affordable Housing 91.520(b) Evaluation of the jurisdiction's progress in providing affordable housing, including the number and types of families served, the number of extremely low-income, low-income, moderate-income, and middle-income persons served.

One-Year Goal Actual Number of homeless households to be provided affordable housing units

Number of non-homeless households to be provided affordable housing units

Number of special-needs households to be provided affordable housing units

Total Table 5- Number of Households

One-Year Goal Actual Number of households supported through rental assistance

Number of households supported through the production of new units

Number of households supported through the rehab of existing units

Number of households supported through the acquisition of existing units

Total Table 6 - Number of Households Supported

Discuss the difference between goals and outcomes and problems encountered in meeting these goals.

The City does not typically build or own housing directly which impacts the ability to attain the annual goals listed above. However, as noted earlier, the City was active in assisting the developers of new multifamily rental developments in town to conduct marketing and application processes for affordable rent restricted units in Pleasanton. Two of these projects, the Galloway Pleasanton (38 units) and the Mason Flats at Township Square (32 units) completed application processes for rental units restricted to very low income (50% AMI) households. One additional project by BRE / Essex began construction in Spring 2016 and is expected to hold an application process in October 2016. Upon completion these three projects will add an additional 460 units to the City’s rental housing stock including 72 units affordable for very low income households.


In addition, in March 2016 the City completed the disposition process for the public housing authority site and closed financing with MidPen Housing to develop the first phase of the Kottinger Gardens project. This project will provide 185 units of rental housing for seniors, all at very low and extremely low income rent levels.

The new projects discussed above will ensure that the annual goals are met and exceeded over the longer term.

Discuss how these outcomes will impact future annual action plans.

The City will continue to monitor its progress toward meeting annual goals for the production of affordable housing units for homeless, non-homeless, and special needs populations as current and future projects move forward toward construction and completion. The goals within annual Action Plans may be adjusted as needed although this is not anticipated to be necessary with the large number of affordable units that are currently in the "pipeline."

Include the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income persons served by each activity where information on income by family size is required to determine the eligibility of the activity.

Number of Persons Served CDBG Actual HOME Actual Extremely Low-income 499 4 Low-income 452 0 Moderate-income 184 0 Total 1,135 4

Table 7 – Number of Persons Served

Narrative Information


CR-25 - Homeless and Other Special Needs 91.220(d, e); 91.320(d, e); 91.520(c) Evaluate the jurisdiction’s progress in meeting its specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through:

Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs

HOME Consortium jurisdictions continued their outreach to unsheltered persons over the last year. Abode’s mobile outreach team covers all of South and East County and works closely with the human services and law enforcement departments of the cities to identify and contact unsheltered persons. In the last program year, Abode’s outreach team reached 539 persons, 88% of whom were staying in places not meant for human habitation. Abode helped 43 homeless persons find permanent housing. As lead agency for AC Impact, a direct access to permanent housing from the streets program, Abode ensured that 50 high need individuals housed directly from places not meant for human habitation retained their housing, a 965 success rate. Street outreach worked with law enforcement in Fremont, Livermore, Hayward and Oakland to focus on chronically homeless persons whom law enforcement had identified as highly vulnerable and having particularly problematic street behavior. The City of Albany continued to fund the Berkeley Food and Housing Project to conduct outreach in its jurisdiction. Having undergone a push to house 27 people out of its largest encampment in the prior year, Albany saw less than half of caseload it did in 2014. San Leandro funded Building Futures with Women and Children to conduct street outreach for a second winter, helping 18 finding temporary housing. The city of Hayward funded the Community Action Network to provide street outreach to 38 individuals living outdoors in its jurisdiction. In 2016 Alameda County anticipates using Medicaid Waiver funds to double street outreach capacity across the County, including the HOME Consortium jurisdictions.

The City of Pleasanton partners with several agencies that provide outreach to homeless individuals and families, including Tri-Valley Haven and Open Heart Kitchen, both of which offer food programs and related services. Pleasanton also funded homeless outreach services through Abode Services in FY16/17 through City funds and will report those outcomes in the FY16/17 CAPER.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons

Even though State ESG funding for emergency shelters in the HOME Consortium was reduced in both 2015 and 2016 funding rounds, all shelters in the HOME Consortium remained open during the reporting period, due to local funds being provided by the Alameda County Social Services Agency. Year round emergency shelter capacity within the HOME Consortium consisted of 231 beds for families with minor children and 153 beds for single adults. The City of San Leandro added 30 severe weather beds to those operated by Livermore (30) and Fremont (35). Hayward also opened a severe weather shelter


early in 2016 for a few months. The County supported warming centers, winter shelter beds, and expanded street outreach in the North County area and a warming center and winter rapid re-housing in the South County area. Two transitional housing projects converted into permanent housing reducing the overall capacity by 62 beds—33 for families and 29 for unaccompanied adults. Current capacity stands at 86 family beds and 90 single beds (62 of those are grant per diem beds restricted to Veterans). The majority of the Continuum of Care’s homeless population continues to be unsheltered (59% as of the January 28, 2015 Point-In-Time Count). The strategy for meeting this need is to try and resolve persons’ homelessness more quickly, especially in transitional housing, so that each bed is used to support multiple people throughout the year. In 2015, HUD changed the way it measured length of time homeless by having communities calculate the combined average length of stay for persons in transitional housing and emergency shelter programs. The new base line average for Alameda County is 170 days, just under 6 months. The HOME Consortium continues to expand rapid rehousing slots, primarily using local general fund and state TANF dollars. There are no plans to increase year-round emergency shelter or transitional housing capacity, but several HOME Consortium cities will fund severe weather shelters again this coming winter.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: likely to become homeless after being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); and, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs

The Continuum is working with a number of publically funded institutions of care to ensure that persons are not discharged into homelessness. The realignment housing program has housing specialists work with persons in the County jail on their housing needs prior to their release date and is funded by Alameda County Probation Department to rapidly rehouse those who are or could become homeless. It also participated actively in the Youth Transitions Planning partnership funded by Health and Human services (HHS) to ensure that no transitional age youth aging out of foster care exits to homelessness. The partnership works to coordinate the foster care and McKinney funded housing resources to ensure no youth fall out of housing.Alameda County is a “housing first” continuum of care. All funded programs prioritize finding clients permanent housing as quickly as possible without any clinical pre-conditions, such as sobriety, medication compliance or utilizing a shelter or transitional housing program first. We continue to expand Rapid Rehousing and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) throughout the county, and support the inclusion of PSH units as part of larger affordable housing developments.

Alameda County is a “housing first” continuum of care. All funded programs prioritize finding clients


permanent housing as quickly as possible without any clinical pre-conditions, such as sobriety, medication compliance or utilizing a shelter or transitional housing program first. We continuum to expand Rapid Rehousing and Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) throughout the county, and support the inclusion of PSH units as part of larger affordable housing developments.

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again

EveryOne Home, Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department and Behavioral Health Care Services are collaborating to create a registry of all homeless and disabled people, who have been assessed and prioritized for permanent supportive housing. The most vulnerable (chronically homeless, high service users) will be assigned housing navigators to aid them in their housing search and application process. Eventually all 1900 units of PSH will be filled from this "Home Stretch Registry", as it is called. As of July 2016, Continuum of Care and Mental Health Services Act funded Permanent Supportive Housing in the County fills vacancies using this single registry of homeless disabled persons who have been prioritized based on need and length of time homeless. The Home Stretch initiative is the Continuum’s primary focus for bringing an end to chronic homelessness. According to the 2015 Point-In-Time Count, the number of persons experiencing chronic homelessness has dropped from 931 in 2013 to 660 in 2015.

Operation Vets Home is the collaborative continuum-wide effort to bring an end to veteran homelessness by 12/31/16. The Committee consists of EveryOne Home, the Veterans Administration and four Support Services for Veterans Family grantees, and several street outreach programs. The group has identified all homeless vets by name and assigned them to an agency that has subsidies available and outreach workers to enroll and engage vets. According to the registry, the number of homeless veterans at a point in time has dropped by 36% since January 2016.

The HOME Consortium has also expanded resources for families experiencing homelessness and seen the number of homeless families drop by 30% from 462 in 2013 to 324 in the 2015 Point-In-Time Count. One major shift that took effect during this reporting period was to convert a scattered site transitional housing program that served 47 families per year to Rapid Rehousing, which allows the program to step-down the rental subsidy amount gradually over time, allowing the subsidy funds to be spread over more families, doubling the program’s annual capacity. Providers within the Consortium have also been awarded funds to rehouse homeless families on TANF using money from the State of California award to the County Social Service Agency. ESG funds and County general funds are also assisting families.



CR-30 - Public Housing 91.220(h); 91.320(j) Actions taken to address the needs of public housing

Kottinger Place, a 50-unit apartment complex for seniors built in the 1970's, is the only Public Housing development located in Pleasanton. Over the past ten years, the City has committed over $150,000 in CDBG and City Housing Funds to implement significant exterior rehabilitation projects, including parking and pavement repairs and landscape rehabilitation improvements (for energy efficiency and maintenance cost reduction). The level of City investment was reduced in recent years with continued Capital Grant funding (approximately $50,000 per year) from HUD as well as HUD’s introduction of the Operating Subsidy (of which Kottinger Place has received an average of approximately $100,000 per year).

As described earlier in this report, the City is currently working with MidPen Housing Corporation on a plan to redevelop Kottinger Place (50 units) together with Pleasanton Gardens, a 40-unit Section 236 / Section 8 elderly housing complex across the street. The new project will have 185 total units for rental at very low and extremely low income levels and the first phase is expected to begin construction in 2015. This project will significantly improve the quality and quantity of the current aging Public Housing complex. The City completed the disposition of Kottinger Place with HUD in February 2016 and the City is moving forward with MidPen on construction of the first phase which is anticipated to complete in May 2017.

Residents were relocated at Kottinger Place in March/April 2016. The City sis now coordinating with HUD on dissolution steps for the Housing Authority now following the disposition of its only asset, Kottinger Place.

Actions taken to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership

Kottinger Place is Pleasanton's only Public Housing development and serves seniors. Residents were encouraged to be involved in management activities and were actively involved in meetings around the temporary relocation as part of the site redevelopment (e.g., through regular resident meetings). There has been no program to promote home ownership due to the nature of the resident population.

Actions taken to provide assistance to troubled PHAs

N/A. Pleasanton Housing Authority has consistently been designated as a high performing PHA by HUD.


CR-35 - Other Actions 91.220(j)-(k); 91.320(i)-(j) Actions taken to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment. 91.220 (j); 91.320 (i)

The City recently completed an update to its Housing Element which was subsequently certified by the State. The update includes revised policies that will guide City programs for affordability, preservation, discrimination, and other housing-related concerns consistent with state and federal requirements concerning housing affordability. The updated Housing Element incorporates the new regional housing needs determination "fair share" targets that were recently established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Most significantly, the Housing Element identified approximately 70 acres of land for new high density residential development which has created new opportunities for the development of new affordable rental housing in coming years. The 70 acres is spread over approximately 20 individual sites of varying sizes that are located throughout Pleasanton (see Figure P-1). The City Council approved rezonings for all of the affected properties in 2012, and eight (8) new multi-family residential projects have already been approved and are either under construction or seeking building permits. The City’s General Plan recently underwent a comprehensive update which was approved by the City Council in 2009.

Actions taken to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

The City's Housing Commission (HC) continued to address affordable housing issues during FY 2015. The HC was formed in 1996 and has since taken on a strong role as an affordable housing advocate, reviewing and formulating recommendations concerning City policies for affordable housing projects, a budget for use of the City's Housing Fund, requests for City fee waivers, the development of incentives for affordable housing developers, inclusionary zoning policies, rent increases relative to Section 8 assistance, and other issues. In addition, the Commission established a citizens’ committee (the “Kottinger Place Redevelopment Task Force”) to coordinate the redevelopment of two aging senior housing facilities (the Kottinger Gardens project referenced earlier which is now moving forward to construction in 2016). The HC sponsored a forum on affordable housing several years ago. The forum, which was intended to provide information on affordable housing issues to the greater community, was well attended and is planned to be repeated periodically.

City of Pleasanton staff collaborated with Abode Services, ECHO Housing, and Eden Information and Referral in October 2015 to sponsor the third annual outreach event to educate and encourage local landlords to consider working with tenants who participate in various assistance programs (e.g., Section


8, Linkages, Project Independence, Tri-Valley Housing Scholarship Program, etc.). Another event will likely be planned for October 2016. These events are aimed at developing positive relationships with locally-based landlords with the goal of overcoming misconceptions about housing assistance programs and promoting the positive benefits to increase their use and acceptance in an increasingly difficult rent market. In addition, the Commission approved a policy amendment to allow Abode Services to consider housing clients of the tenant based rental assistance programs in other cities if affordable units cannot be found in Pleasanton after reasonable attempts.

Actions taken to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

Actions taken to reduce the number of poverty-level families. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

The City established the Tri-Valley Housing Scholarship Program in the late 1990’s to provide a meaningful tool to assist persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to rise above poverty. Emergency assistance provided through the Linkages program and also through local support of emergency services such as the Open Heart Kitchen has helped to address the roots of poverty. No additional specific anti-poverty programs or strategies were initiated locally during the program period inasmuch as Pleasanton has a low poverty level relative to other areas of Alameda County. However, through its involvement with the Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center, the City augmented programs targeted at assisting households at risk of or undergoing foreclosure due to the current mortgage crisis. City staff participated on the Alameda County Continuum of Care Working Group to develop a county-wide network of policies and programs to address homelessness. This effort is anticipated to improve the delivery of homeless services in the Tri-Valley area. The availability of data from the decennial census for the year 2010 has provided an updated profile of the income levels of Pleasanton residents.

Recent specific actions to reduce the number of poverty-level families include:

• 2011 update of Tri-Valley Human Services Needs Assessment by the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore.

• Production of a regional “pocket guide” to area human services which provides important information for consumers.

• Collaboration with the cities of Livermore and Dublin and the County of Alameda on a regional


Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) program involving the City of Livermore Horizons Program, ECHO Housing, and Abode Services (the program was terminated in 2012 when funds were exhausted).

• Participation in the Tri-Valley Poverty Awareness Initiative (TVPAI), a multi-sector collaboration formed in 2013 to address issues of hidden poverty in the Tri-Valley Area. In addition to local jurisdictions, membership includes large and influential corporate members. The TVPAI has met regularly and continues to grow and launch effective strategies to address the hidden poverty in the Tri-Valley area.

Continued support for City-Serve Tri-Valley to support the housing and resource needs which are provided by the local faith based network towards homelessness prevention and interventions for families, seniors and individuals in Pleasanton and the Tri-Valley.

Actions taken to develop institutional structure. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

The City's Housing Manager is responsible for coordinating a variety of housing-related efforts which have heretofore been distributed among various City departments and contract agencies. A part-time office assistant was added in April 2016 to support the division activities. As described earlier, the City established a Housing Commission in 1996. This commission has taken on a strong role as an affordable housing advocate. The Housing Commission has established several project-specific task forces (e.g., the Assisted Living Facility Subcommittee, the Kottinger Place Redevelopment Task Force, City Council / Commission Grant Process Working Group, etc.) to work on specific affordable housing projects and activities. The City recently reviewed options for merging the Housing Commission with the existing Human Services Commission in order to further enhance the City’s capacity to review projects and activities in which housing and services are frequently integrated. However, after conducting significant analysis and public outreach, the City Council ultimately decided to maintain the current two-commission structure.

In FY 2015, the City completed the sixth full year of implementation of the City’s community grant allocation program that consolidated funds from multiple sources (e.g., CDBG, HOME, City Lower Income Housing Fund, and General Fund dollars for human services) into a single allocation process called the Housing and Human Services Grant (HHSG) program. The HHSG program was introduced in 2009 and has increased the aggregate amount of funding available agencies as well as the efficiency in allocating and utilizing the funds. The application process was converted to an online system (ZoomGrants) for the FY 2010 funding cycle, and all reporting and invoicing is now being conducted electronically. Such enhancements to the local institutional structure continue to improve the City's ability to coordinate and deliver housing and human services.

The City's Human Services Commission continues to meet monthly to coordinate the delivery of


services to lower income residents and special needs groups in the subregion in cooperation with "Interact," a body comprised of representatives of each of the social service agencies in the Tri-Valley area. Approximately twice yearly, the Commission has held a special, joint meeting with the City of Livermore Human Services Commission to coordinate the delivery of services in the greater Tri-Valley area and to collaborate on such regional projects as the “Pocket Guide to Human Services” and the Tri-Valley Human Services Needs Assessment.

Representatives from the Pleasanton and Livermore Housing Commission and Human Services Commissions met jointly in fall 2014 to develop joint goals, policies, and programs for the Consolidated Plan update for fiscal years 2015-19 repeating a process used in the prior Con Plan update. As in previous instances, the joint Consolidated Plan review process involved significant outreach to the range of community groups and nonprofit agencies involved in housing and human services for low-income residents.

Actions taken to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies. 91.220(k); 91.320(j)

The City of Pleasanton has continued participate in the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee (TVAHC), which is made up of representatives from the jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley area (Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin, San Ramon, Danville, and the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa). Pleasanton has cooperated in many instances with the cities of Livermore and Dublin to fund projects and services which are of benefit to the Tri-Valley area, assisting agencies which are located outside of Pleasanton but provide important services to Pleasanton residents. During FY 2015, in spite of increasing land costs and community pressures to curtail additional development, the City continued to work with private developers to encourage the construction of affordable housing in Pleasanton. The City also initiated discussions in FY 2014 with Sunflower Hill, a nonprofit organization serving the vocational, recreational and housing needs of adults with special needs (developmental disabilities including autism) . Staff worked with the agency and a market rate developer on their submittal of an application in 2016 to develop an approximately 94 unit market rate development with a parcel dedicated to develop a project serving Sunflower Hills supportive housing mission. They have submitted a development application which is currently under review. Support for Sunflower Hill’s organizational mission is an adopted City Council priority for 2015-2016.

Identify actions taken to overcome the effects of any impediments identified in the jurisdictions analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. 91.520(a)


As described earlier, the City provides fair housing and housing counseling services to area residents through a contract with ECHO Housing. The City’s funding of this service is high on a per-capita basis relative to other communities, and the majority of this service is paid for with local rather than HUD funds. In addition to the general services provide through the City’s contract with ECHO, the City of Pleasanton has been active in the following areas:

• Annual sponsorship of the East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO) whose efforts focus on a public education campaign to address local opposition to and misconceptions about affordable housing. The City has collaborated with EBHO and with other local jurisdictions to conduct public tours of local affordable housing projects and forums focused on specific housing issues, usually in conjunction with the annual “Affordable Housing Week” events.

• Collaborative funding of regional housing projects that have a benefit to Pleasanton residents (listed earlier).

• An extensive Housing Rehabilitation Program through a contract with Neighborhood Solutions which ensures outreach to minority and women contractors as well as local business enterprises.

• Rehabilitation grants and loans available to assist landlords in removing accessibility barriers to expand rental opportunities for persons with physical disabilities.

• Use of local, State, and HOME funds to construct and or acquire and rehabilitate housing units for rental by persons with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities.

• Sponsorship of the Tri-Valley Housing Scholarship Program which offers tenant-based rental assistance to households who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.


CR-40 - Monitoring 91.220 and 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures used to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and used to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements

The City continues to implement procedures targeted at ensuring compliance with program requirements on an on-going basis. Since becoming an entitlement city in FY 1994, staff has refined procedures for monitoring subrecipients, tracking fixed assets, ensuring compliance with wage requirements, and other provisions. City staff has regularly collaborated with other Cities through the Alameda County HOME Consortium to acquire additional ideas and adopt best practices from other jurisdictions which are planned for implementation in the near future to further improve program compliance. Staff from the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore continue to collaborate in annual monitoring visits with subrecipients that are funded by both cities. This relationship was expanded in 2012 to include the City of Dublin (a non-entitlement Urban County jurisdiction).

The City maintains an active database of potential interested parties and uses it to send out notification of grant funding opportunities at the beginning of every application cycle (early December). The list currently includes approximately 250 nonprofit agencies, individuals, and other interested parties. In addition, ads are placed in local newspapers (including the Pleasanton Weekly which is distributed to every household in Pleasanton) and on the City’s web site. Several years ago, the City converted its grant management system to an online system supported by ZoomGrants. This provides a new and effectively global means of access to the City’s annual grant funding opportunities.

The City works closely with Neighborhood Solutions to maintain a database of minority and female-owned businesses that are eligible to provide work on grant and loan jobs through the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program. In FY 2015, the City conducted a survey of contractors to obtain current information on MBE/WBE status as well as federal ID, DUNS, licensing, and other information. Grant agreements include all applicable language requiring subrecipient conformance with prevailing wage, MBE/WBE, Section 3, and other applicable federal and local requirements.

Citizen Participation Plan 91.105(d); 91.115(d)

Describe the efforts to provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports.

The City provides several opportunities to solicit comments from the public on the CAPER:


• Notice of the annual CAPER hearing before the City’s Human Services Commission is publicized in the Pleasanton Weekly which is delivered to all residents of Pleasanton.

• Subrecipients of grant funds are sent direct notices via email and regular mail.

• The Human Services Commission meeting includes a section inviting general comments from members of the public which become part of the written record via the meeting minutes.

• In FY2015, the Housing Commission also conducted a hearing of HHS Grant funded accomplishments, which provided an additional opportunity for the public for input into the CAPER process.

• The current CAPER report is posted on the Citys’ web site with the current Consolidated Plan and Action Plan.

• Performance data is displayed on the ZoomGrants web site where it is viewable globally by any interested member of the public.

• The County of Alameda coordinates a regional public review period for the annual CAPER through the Alameda County HOME Consortium (of which Pleasanton is a member jurisdiction).


CR-45 - CDBG 91.520(c) Specify the nature of, and reasons for, any changes in the jurisdiction’s program objectives and indications of how the jurisdiction would change its programs as a result of its experiences.

No changes to objectives or programs are anticipated at this time. Any lack of progress observed in the case of several specific objectives for FY 2015 is typically due to the fact that some programs span multiple years (e.g., the production of new affordable rental units through the development of new apartment projects). Therefore, it is anticipated that accomplishments will be reflected in next year’s CAPER.

Does this Jurisdiction have any open Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grants?

No

[BEDI grantees] Describe accomplishments and program outcomes during the last year.


CR-60 - ESG 91.520(g) (ESG Recipients only) ESG Supplement to the CAPER in e-snaps

For Paperwork Reduction Act

1. Recipient Information—All Recipients Complete Basic Grant Information

Recipient Name PLEASANTON Organizational DUNS Number 004939724 EIN/TIN Number 946000397 Indentify the Field Office SAN FRANCISCO Identify CoC(s) in which the recipient or subrecipient(s) will provide ESG assistance

ESG Contact Name

Prefix First Name Middle Name Last Name Suffix Title

ESG Contact Address

Street Address 1 Street Address 2 City State ZIP Code - Phone Number Extension Fax Number Email Address

ESG Secondary Contact

Prefix First Name Last Name Suffix Title Phone Number Extension Email Address

2. Reporting Period—All Recipients Complete

Program Year Start Date 07/01/2015


Program Year End Date 06/30/2016

3a. Subrecipient Form – Complete one form for each subrecipient

Subrecipient or Contractor Name City State Zip Code DUNS Number Is subrecipient a vistim services provider Subrecipient Organization Type ESG Subgrant or Contract Award Amount


CR-65 - Persons Assisted 4. Persons Served

4a. Complete for Homelessness Prevention Activities

Number of Persons in Households

Total

Adults Children Don’t Know/Refused/Other Missing Information Total

Table 8 – Household Information for Homeless Prevention Activities

4b. Complete for Rapid Re-Housing Activities


Total


Table 9 – Household Information for Rapid Re-Housing Activities

4c. Complete for Shelter


Total


Table 10 – Shelter Information


4d. Street Outreach


Total


Table 11 – Household Information for Street Outreach

4e. Totals for all Persons Served with ESG


Total


Table 12 – Household Information for Persons Served with ESG

5. Gender—Complete for All Activities

Total Male Female Transgender Don't Know/Refused/Other Missing Information Total

Table 13 – Gender Information


6. Age—Complete for All Activities

Total Under 18 18-24 25 and over Don’t Know/Refused/Other Missing Information Total

Table 14 – Age Information

7. Special Populations Served—Complete for All Activities

Number of Persons in Households Subpopulation Total Total Persons

Served – Prevention

Total Persons Served – RRH

Total Persons

Served in Emergency

Shelters Veterans Victims of Domestic Violence

Elderly HIV/AIDS Chronically Homeless

Persons with Disabilities: Severely Mentally Ill

Chronic Substance Abuse

Other Disability

Total (unduplicated if possible)

Table 15 – Special Population Served


CR-70 – ESG 91.520(g) - Assistance Provided and Outcomes 10. Shelter Utilization

Number of New Units – Rehabbed Number of New Units – Conversion Total Number of bed - nigths available Total Number of bed - nights provided Capacity Utilization

Table 16 – Shelter Capacity

11. Project Outcomes Data measured under the performance standards developed in consultation with the CoC(s)


CR-75 – Expenditures 11. Expenditures

11a. ESG Expenditures for Homelessness Prevention

Dollar Amount of Expenditures in Program Year 2013 2014 2015 Expenditures for Rental Assistance Expenditures for Housing Relocation and Stabilization Services - Financial Assistance

Expenditures for Housing Relocation & Stabilization Services - Services

Expenditures for Homeless Prevention under Emergency Shelter Grants Program

Subtotal Homelessness Prevention Table 17 – ESG Expenditures for Homelessness Prevention

11b. ESG Expenditures for Rapid Re-Housing

Dollar Amount of Expenditures in Program Year 2013 2014 2015 Expenditures for Rental Assistance Expenditures for Housing Relocation and Stabilization Services - Financial Assistance

Expenditures for Housing Relocation & Stabilization Services - Services

Expenditures for Homeless Assistance under Emergency Shelter Grants Program

Subtotal Rapid Re-Housing Table 18 – ESG Expenditures for Rapid Re-Housing

11c. ESG Expenditures for Emergency Shelter

Dollar Amount of Expenditures in Program Year 2013 2014 2015 Essential Services Operations Renovation Major Rehab Conversion Subtotal

Table 19 – ESG Expenditures for Emergency Shelter


11d. Other Grant Expenditures

Dollar Amount of Expenditures in Program Year 2013 2014 2015 Street Outreach HMIS Administration

Table 20 - Other Grant Expenditures

11e. Total ESG Grant Funds

Total ESG Funds Expended 2013 2014 2015

Table 21 - Total ESG Funds Expended

11f. Match Source

2013 2014 2015 Other Non-ESG HUD Funds Other Federal Funds State Government Local Government Private Funds Other Fees Program Income Total Match Amount

Table 22 - Other Funds Expended on Eligible ESG Activities

11g. Total

Total Amount of Funds Expended on ESG

Activities

2013 2014 2015

Table 23 - Total Amount of Funds Expended on ESG Activities


Attachment

Table P1- HHSG Funded Activities


Analysis of Impediments to FH Update Pleasanton




PR23 City of Pleasanton





PR26 City of Pleasanton


Summary of Accomplishments for Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing

City of Pleasanton FY2015

The following table describes this year's Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing’s Goals and Objectives (FY15 - 19). Actions Current Year’s Actions

(FY15) FY15 Accomplishments FY15-19 Cumulative Accomplishments

Policy #1: Secure Federal Funding for Community Development Activities. 1.1: Complete a HUD-approved Consolidated Plan and Action Plan.

1.1: Complete a HUD-approved Consolidated Plan and Action Plan.

Consolidated Plan completed in May 2015; FY15 Action Plan completed

Con Plan completed; FY10 - FY15 Action Plan completed

1:2: Access, receive, and disburse federal entitlement grant funding.

1:2: Access, receive, and disburse federal entitlement grant funding.

On-going On-going

1.3: Monitor implementation of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan.

1.3: Monitor implementation of the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan.

CAPER reporting on FY15 activities completed CAPER completed for FY15.

Policy #2: Maintain and Implement and Updated Housing Element 2:1: Strive for State-certified Housing Element.

2:1: Strive for State-certified Housing Element.

The City’s Housing Element was adopted January 6, 2015 and was certified through a review letter submitted by the State of California om January 30, 2015.

The City’s Housing Element was adopted January 6, 2015 and was certified through a review letter submitted by the State of California om January 30, 2015.

2.2: Implement Housing Element programs.

2.2: Implement Housing Element programs.

The City of Pleasanton is implementing its Housing Element programs, and will report on its progress in its General Plan Annual Report.

On-Going

Policy #3: Ensure Consistency Between Local Zoning Ordinances and Fair Housing Choice. 3.1 Maintain zoning for emergency shelters, supportive and transitional housing that complies with State law.

3.1 Maintain zoning for emergency shelters, supportive and transitional housing that complies with State law.

Zoning is consistent Completed

3.2: Maintain a definition of family consistent with fair housing law.

3.2: Maintain a definition of family consistent with fair housing law.

Definition is consistent. Definition is consistent.

3.3: Establish zoning that treats community care facilities consistently.

3.3: Establish zoning that treats community care facilities consistently.

City’s zoning treats community care facilities consistently. On-going

3.4 Maintain zoning for secondary units that complies with State laws.

3.4 Maintain zoning for secondary units that complies with State laws.

Zoning complies with State law. On-going

Policy #4: Support Local Fair Housing Activities and Services. 4.1: Conduct ongoing outreach and education regarding fair housing.

4.1: Conduct ongoing outreach and education regarding fair housing.

The City provided $50,000 in Lower Income Housing Funds to ECHO to provide services. 7 clients received fair tenant landlord mediation investigation or enforcement services; 115 households received tenant landlord counseling and mediation.

The City provided $50,000 in Lower Income Housing Funds to ECHO to provide services. 7 clients received fair tenant landlord mediation investigation or enforcement services; 115 households received tenant landlord counseling and mediation.

4.2: Respond to fair housing concerns and complaints in a timely fashion.

4.2: Respond to fair housing concerns and complaints in a timely fashion.

ECHO responded to 7 inquiries which resulted in 4 resource/informational consultations and 3 investigations.

Agency met goals.

4.3: Consider or continue fair housing testing

4.3: Consider or continue fair housing testing.

ECHO has an on-going testing program Testing is on-going.

4.4: Consider options to increase 4.4: Consider options to increase ECHO conducted 4 fair housing trainings for owners; 6 fair ECHO conducted 4 fair housing trainings for owners; 6 fair

Actions Current Year’s Actions


participation in fair housing trainings by landlords and property managers.

participation in fair housing trainings by landlords and property managers.

housing training for tenants and 2 for the No. CA Fair Housing Coalition.

housing training for tenants and 2 for the No. CA Fair Housing Coalition.

4.5: Consider mandatory notification policies for fair housing services.

4.5: Consider mandatory notification policies for fair housing services.

Policy #5: Support Special Needs Housing 5.1: Establish and communicate clear procedures to address reasonable accommodation requests.

5.1: Establish and communicate clear procedures to address reasonable accommodation requests.

5.2: Consider adoption of universal design requirements or incentives.

5.2: Consider adoption of universal design requirements or incentives.

5.3: Consider providing financial support to facilitate the ability of persons with disabilities to make reasonable modifications to their dwelling unit.

5.3: Consider providing financial support to facilitate the ability of persons with disabilities to make reasonable modifications to their dwelling unit

Funding is available for ADA modifications through the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program.

On-going

Policy #6: Support Fair Lending Practices and Access to Credit 6.1: Continue to support financial training and homebuyer assistance programs.

6.1: Continue to support financial training and homebuyer assistance programs.

Contracted with Hello Housing and ECHO Housing to provide first time homebuyer support for persons purchasing homes in Pleasanton. ECHO established the ECHO Homeownership Center in March 2016.

Bi-monthly workshops offered through ECHO, resource information specific to Pleasanton offered through Hello Housing’s website.

6.2: Maintain list of lenders with specific expertise in supporting low-income home seekers.

6.2: Maintain list of lenders with specific expertise in supporting low-income home seekers.

Hello Housing maintains a list of lenders as well as the MCC Program maintains a list of partner lenders.

Lists maintained

Policy #7: Continue and Expand Support for Affordable Housing Production. 7.1: Support local affordable housing developers.

7.1: Support local affordable housing developers.

The City supports local affordable housing developers as opportunities become available. For example, the FY15 City Council work plan includes support for Sunflower Hill, a local non-profit with the mission of expanding housing opportunities for persons with special needs in Pleasanton.

On-going

7.2: Mitigate constraints on the production of affordable housing.

7.3 Work with local Planning departments to mitigate constraints. Adopted updated Housing Elements including analysis of constraints and actions to be taken.

On-going On-going

7.3: Explore innovative sources of local funds to support affordable housing development.

7.3: Explore innovative sources of local funds to support affordable housing development.

The City continues to leverage City Housing Impact Fees and use the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a key source of funding for affordable housing in Pleasanton.

Ongoing

7.4: Consider options to enhance 7.4: Consider options to enhance

Actions Current Year’s Actions


existing density bonus and incentive programs for affordable housing production.

existing density bonus and incentive programs for affordable housing production.

7.5: Review existing inclusionary housing ordinances.

7.5: Review existing inclusionary housing ordinances.

Policy #8: Support Access to Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Units 8.1: Facilitate access to affordable and below-market –rate units

8.1: Facilitate access to affordable and below-market –rate units

In FY2015, 38 new Below Market Rate apartments were marketed at the Galloway development in Pleasanton. This development is located in close proximity to BART and BMR Units are targeted to 50%AMI households. Three units are fully accessible for persons in wheelchairs. Through financing and land (former 50 unit Public Housing Authority property Kottinger Place) provided by the City, MidPen Housing commenced with development Phase 1 of Kottinger Gardens, a new, 185 unit senior housing development that will be constructed over the next two years. Phase 1 construction began in May 2016. The City purchased and marketed for resale, two BMR homes which will be resold to households with incomes at 80% & 120% of AMI.

In FY2015, 38 new Below Market Rate apartments were marketed at the Galloway development in Pleasanton. This development is located in close proximity to BART and BMR Units are targeted to 50%AMI households. Three units are fully accessible for persons in wheelchairs. Through financing and land (former 50 unit Public Housing Authority property Kottinger Place) provided by the City, MidPen Housing commenced with development Phase 1 of Kottinger Gardens, a new, 185 unit senior housing development that will be constructed over the next two years. Phase 1 construction began in May 2016. The City purchased and marketed for resale, two BMR homes which will be resold to households with incomes at 80% & 120% of AMI.

8.2: Evaluate funding availability to support rental assistance programs

8.2: Evaluate funding availability to support rental assistance programs

In FY2015, the City provided funding to Abode Services for the Tri-Valley Housing Scholarship Program which supported 3 formerly homeless persons with rental subsidies and case management while they achieved educational goals and occupational training aimed as self-sufficiency.

In FY2015, the City provided funding to Abode Services for the Tri-Valley Housing Scholarship Program which supported 3 formerly homeless persons with rental subsidies and case management while they achieved educational goals and occupational training aimed as self-sufficiency.

8.3: Continue to seek adjustment to the HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the Oakland-Fremont Metropolitan Division

8.3: Continue to seek adjustment to the HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the Oakland-Fremont Metropolitan Division

8.4: Consider the adoption of rent mediation or stabilization programs.

8.4: Consider the adoption of rent mediation or stabilization programs.

8.5: Support shared housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs populations.

8.5: Support shared housing opportunities for seniors and other special needs populations.

Date post:	10-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)

Documents